As much as I love the Garand, I'm afraid it is obsolete as a battle rifle. It's too heavy, too powerful, recoils to much, and lacks fire power. For the hobbyist/collector/competitor it still has much appeal, but it has no place in the modern battlefield. Maybe if we convince our enemies to start carrying bolt-action Mausers, the old Garand will come back into vogue. Not until.
Do you think the Garand is obsolete?
- Thread starter DMK
- Start date
- Status
Vern Humphrey
Member
True -- although a Garand can be loaded and fired fast enough to literally char the handguards, so it isn't as much of a disadvantage as it seems.
Old wives' tale. First of all, American soldiers don't come in ones -- they come in squads and platoons and companies. So while one man is reloading, there are plenty more with rounds in the magazine. Secondly, lie down outside of grenade range, and when you hear the ping! jump up and charge -- you won't make it to your knees before I've reloaded.
True.
False -- thousands of buildings have been cleared by troops with Garands.
Outlaws
Member
Yes, but they didn't have a choice. But I bet those with a Thompson were more comfortable clearing buildings...if you can ever be "comfortable" clearing a building.
Vern Humphrey
Member
I'll bet they weren't.
Let me explain -- soldiers are not cops or homeowners. We clear buildings with explosives, rockets and recoilless weapons and by shooting through walls, floors and ceilings. The M1 with AP ammo is ideal in that role.
Neo-Luddite
Member
3.) Scope mounting has to be off to the side. (Not directly above the bore.)
They make a nice scout-type mount that replaces the rear handguard--CMP has them and if they come down in price I'll snag one.\
People who still consider the Garand a viable battlefield / SHTF rifle have their reasons--these are numerous and varried. The bottom line (often) is fanatical and even cult-like devotion to the platform; You can inform them to the contrary, but they will likely not budge.
They make a nice scout-type mount that replaces the rear handguard--CMP has them and if they come down in price I'll snag one.\
People who still consider the Garand a viable battlefield / SHTF rifle have their reasons--these are numerous and varried. The bottom line (often) is fanatical and even cult-like devotion to the platform; You can inform them to the contrary, but they will likely not budge.
Vern Humphrey
Member
My bottom line is experience. My first tour in Viet Nam as an Adviser, my issue weapon was the M2 Carbine. Mine got wrapped around a tree and I bummed an M1 Garand off the ARVN and carried that from then on.
My second tour as a company commander, I bullied my battalion commander into getting me two M14 sniper rifles (pre-M21 version), gave one to my only school-trained sniper and kept the other for myself.
Nolo
Member
Okay, let me outline some things that I believe to be true:
-What the Garand does (i.e. provide long range, heavy firepower) is still a viable military tactic. There hasn't been a significant enough jump in technology to render that tactic obsolete, though almost no nation uses it.
-The Garand does what it does very well.
-The Garand is not perfect.
-I'd rather have a SAFN-49 than a Garand.
-The M14 does not do the same thing as the Garand.
-Thousands upon thousands of Garands were produced in the '40s, if the Garand was too difficult or too expensive to produce, the military would have replaced it, just like they did the Thompson for the same reason.
-All tactics have weak points that need to be reinforced when they are used. Classic rifleman tactics are no different, and I have seen no proof that their weaknesses are any worse than any other form of tactics.
-The Garand will be what I consider to be obsolete when one of two things happen:
a). A rifle comes along that does its job a whole Helluva lot better than it does, like comparing a StG-44 and a G36.
b). It's mission becomes obsolete. Like how the 1861 Springfield's mission (massed fire) is now obsolete.
Until either of those things happen, the Garand will remain outside of obsolescence, thus qualifying for at least the first two poll answers, and I think the results have shown that to be mostly true in the minds this thread's participants.
-What the Garand does (i.e. provide long range, heavy firepower) is still a viable military tactic. There hasn't been a significant enough jump in technology to render that tactic obsolete, though almost no nation uses it.
-The Garand does what it does very well.
-The Garand is not perfect.
-I'd rather have a SAFN-49 than a Garand.
-The M14 does not do the same thing as the Garand.
-Thousands upon thousands of Garands were produced in the '40s, if the Garand was too difficult or too expensive to produce, the military would have replaced it, just like they did the Thompson for the same reason.
-All tactics have weak points that need to be reinforced when they are used. Classic rifleman tactics are no different, and I have seen no proof that their weaknesses are any worse than any other form of tactics.
-The Garand will be what I consider to be obsolete when one of two things happen:
a). A rifle comes along that does its job a whole Helluva lot better than it does, like comparing a StG-44 and a G36.
b). It's mission becomes obsolete. Like how the 1861 Springfield's mission (massed fire) is now obsolete.
Until either of those things happen, the Garand will remain outside of obsolescence, thus qualifying for at least the first two poll answers, and I think the results have shown that to be mostly true in the minds this thread's participants.
General Geoff
Member
I still fail to see how the M14 cannot do anything the Garand can do, and more (disregard anything about "doctrine" of use, I'm talking the actual hardware).
HorseSoldier
Member
It's obsolete. It was obsolete for how war was actually fought in the 1940s the same way it is obsolete for how war is fought now. Its strength was that, while it was still not optimized for real combat, it was better than its contemporaries like the SMLE and Kar-98K.
It's a popular myth that before that evil old McNamara forced poodle shooters on the US military we were all stone-faced, steely-eyed riflemen picking off the Hun or Japs at a thousand yards with our precision rifle fire.
It's also utter nonsense.
We went into WW2 with a flawed tactical doctrine that stressed long range rifle fire because a bunch of very silly generals failed to grasp that when a guy is dressed in something the color of mud and doing his best to be a minimal target he's just not going to be acquired, much less hit, at anything beyond rather close range. Troops got into combat and found that just because you could pop a round bullseye across a carefully manicured range there was no reason to think you could hit real targets at the same ranges.
A lot of guys lost their lives or were crippled and maimed learning that the training they'd gotten stateside was just shoddy when the rubber met the road on the two-way shooting range, and many veterans of WW2 have discussed how they had to deprogram all that manicured lawn NRA target shooting out of replacement personnel and get them properly trained to suppress, fire, and manuever to close with the enemy and bring real-world effective fire on him, etc.
WW2 is the war the provided us the "almost all infantry engagements occur within 300 meters" factoid after study of how real combat took place. A lot of people had already realized this prior to WW2 (the US, Germans, and Russians were all pushing towards an intermediate round, assault rifle-ish sort of weapon before WW2), but WW2 made the handwriting on the wall almost impossible to ignore (but the US Army managed to do so with the M14 and 7.62x51, at least until the next round of real combat forced the issue).
Combat weapons since that war have not reflected a change in tactical doctrine. They have represented increasing optimization of the service rifle/carbine to actual combat conditions, based on real study of the environment rather than acceptance of conventional wisdom, wishful thinking, and mythology.
All that said, the Garand was a great weapon for its time, because while it was not ideal for real combat conditions (even at the time it was fielded) it was much better for it than most of its contemporaries (the StG-44 and, maybe, FG-42 being exceptions). I wouldn't want to go downrange with a Garand today, even though I like them enough to own two of them (and probably would have taken one in 1941 given the existing options), the same way I would not want to go downrange with a Spencer lever gun today, either, but would have taken one over the alternatives if I was marching or riding into Gettysburg on the 1st of July, 1863. Both will kill someone deader than cancer, there are just better ways to do it today.
From Barnes' Cartridges of the World -- 276 Pedersen is listed as either a 120 grain bullet at 2550 fps for 1732 foot-pounds or 150 grain bullet at 2360 for 1858 foot-pounds. 6.8mm Remington SPC (115 grain loading from Remington, guessing 20" barrel) is 2800 fps for 2002 foot-pounds. 6.5mm Grendel (123 grain Lapua scenar, 19.5" barrel) is 2565 fps for 1797 foot-pounds. Either one basically does what they were looking at for .276 Pedersen (as do the British 280 and 280/30 rounds, for that matter).
It's a popular myth that before that evil old McNamara forced poodle shooters on the US military we were all stone-faced, steely-eyed riflemen picking off the Hun or Japs at a thousand yards with our precision rifle fire.
It's also utter nonsense.
We went into WW2 with a flawed tactical doctrine that stressed long range rifle fire because a bunch of very silly generals failed to grasp that when a guy is dressed in something the color of mud and doing his best to be a minimal target he's just not going to be acquired, much less hit, at anything beyond rather close range. Troops got into combat and found that just because you could pop a round bullseye across a carefully manicured range there was no reason to think you could hit real targets at the same ranges.
A lot of guys lost their lives or were crippled and maimed learning that the training they'd gotten stateside was just shoddy when the rubber met the road on the two-way shooting range, and many veterans of WW2 have discussed how they had to deprogram all that manicured lawn NRA target shooting out of replacement personnel and get them properly trained to suppress, fire, and manuever to close with the enemy and bring real-world effective fire on him, etc.
WW2 is the war the provided us the "almost all infantry engagements occur within 300 meters" factoid after study of how real combat took place. A lot of people had already realized this prior to WW2 (the US, Germans, and Russians were all pushing towards an intermediate round, assault rifle-ish sort of weapon before WW2), but WW2 made the handwriting on the wall almost impossible to ignore (but the US Army managed to do so with the M14 and 7.62x51, at least until the next round of real combat forced the issue).
Combat weapons since that war have not reflected a change in tactical doctrine. They have represented increasing optimization of the service rifle/carbine to actual combat conditions, based on real study of the environment rather than acceptance of conventional wisdom, wishful thinking, and mythology.
All that said, the Garand was a great weapon for its time, because while it was not ideal for real combat conditions (even at the time it was fielded) it was much better for it than most of its contemporaries (the StG-44 and, maybe, FG-42 being exceptions). I wouldn't want to go downrange with a Garand today, even though I like them enough to own two of them (and probably would have taken one in 1941 given the existing options), the same way I would not want to go downrange with a Spencer lever gun today, either, but would have taken one over the alternatives if I was marching or riding into Gettysburg on the 1st of July, 1863. Both will kill someone deader than cancer, there are just better ways to do it today.
From Barnes' Cartridges of the World -- 276 Pedersen is listed as either a 120 grain bullet at 2550 fps for 1732 foot-pounds or 150 grain bullet at 2360 for 1858 foot-pounds. 6.8mm Remington SPC (115 grain loading from Remington, guessing 20" barrel) is 2800 fps for 2002 foot-pounds. 6.5mm Grendel (123 grain Lapua scenar, 19.5" barrel) is 2565 fps for 1797 foot-pounds. Either one basically does what they were looking at for .276 Pedersen (as do the British 280 and 280/30 rounds, for that matter).
The Garand is not obsolete for the individual civilian rifleman, who needs decent accuracy at extended ranges, and good penetration, IMHO. I would not want to use a Garand to search buildings for bad guys. (I wear a big-city police badge; no military service.) Had I been one of the responders to the infamous North Hollywood bank robbery incident, with the two seriously armed bad guys armed wearing body armor, a Garand would have been VERY comforting, though of course smaller-bore carbines ended up being adequate for the task. I have mixed feelings about the en-bloc clip, and kind of like the idea of the stripper clip guide guide as found on the M14/M1A, coupled with the small 5-round magazine, for most use, with the 20-round magazines held in reserve for reloads in extreme situations. I would love to see some kind of removable insert that would allow a Garand to do without the en-bloc clips, that would act as a functional internal magazine. Being located between the South Texas brush country and the East Texas Big Thicket, long, protruding box magazines are not my favorite things. FWIW, I have owned a Garand in the past, and have never had an M1A, though I guess my Mini-14 is "M1A lite."
Nolo
Member
Interesting HorseSoldier, I was under the impression that .276 Pederson was a much more powerful cartridge. Heh. Then it's not what I want. Back to .30-06!
In close quarters combat, the Garand is far from ideal, certainly. However, those are not the tactics that I would use if I were to arm a military force with Garands or a Garand-class weapon. The tactics I would employ would use much more open countryside, and may, in fact be largely defensive. Mountains, valleys and other such areas would become my friend. Capturing a town or city would take a different angle. More precise, surgical warfare, with more special forces. Using rifles like that require different tactics and doctrine, and a different organization to the military. That does not mean that it is obsolete.
HorseSoldier, I agree with you. For the way WWII was fought, the Garand was not, by any stretch of the imagination, the perfect weapon. However, if I were to use Garands, I wouldn't fight like they fought in WWII.
In close quarters combat, the Garand is far from ideal, certainly. However, those are not the tactics that I would use if I were to arm a military force with Garands or a Garand-class weapon. The tactics I would employ would use much more open countryside, and may, in fact be largely defensive. Mountains, valleys and other such areas would become my friend. Capturing a town or city would take a different angle. More precise, surgical warfare, with more special forces. Using rifles like that require different tactics and doctrine, and a different organization to the military. That does not mean that it is obsolete.
HorseSoldier, I agree with you. For the way WWII was fought, the Garand was not, by any stretch of the imagination, the perfect weapon. However, if I were to use Garands, I wouldn't fight like they fought in WWII.
Outlaws
Member
Except that the M1 is way too long.
AP would be nice, but 8 rounds in semi auto is FAR from ideal when it comes to room clearing. Clearing a building is one of those areas where "spray and pray" might actually be needed.
Vern Humphrey
Member
You can spray and pray all you like with a Thompson, but if you ain't getting penetration, you ain't getting nothing.
Careful, systematic shooting with AP ammunition is far from 'spray and pray' however. As part of a tactical solution that includes heavier weapons, it is ideal for fighing in built-up areas.
Outlaws
Member
I would like to think no one is firing heavier weapons at the building I am in if I was clearing it.
AP is great, but the M1 is not idea for room clearing in anyway, shape, or form. The Thompson has drawbacks too, that is why we don't use that anymore, but its better for going into a building than an M1 is.
Vern Humphrey
Member
I'm having difficulty visualizing your tactical concept.
Normally, we use artillery, tanks and infantry together. In WWII we also used flamethrowers in clearing buildings. Nowadays we have different weapons (such as FLASH), the 25mm Hughes chaingun on the Bradley, and so on. And we use them synergistically
I don't understand what you mean by "room clearing." The idea is to kill the enemy, not to "clear" rooms. As the Texas Rangers were wont to say, "Never send a man where you can send a bullet." Or a grenade, recoilless rifle round, or anything that will kill him without giving him a chance to kill you.
aka108
Member
Loved the Garand and my old '50 Mercury. Both great in their day. For many reasons that have been stated many times on this forum I think the AK types top out for close combat and the bolt action is still master at reaching out to touch someone.
Blackfork
Member
Garand
I killed deer with mine the last two years and just shot it at the National Matches at Camp Perry. (55th overall.)
I think it is a dangerous and effective weapon if you know how to shoot. If you don't know how to shoot, it doesn't matter what you are shooting.
I'm going to shoot mine again in Sept at the Texas Garand Match and it's in line for more deer. Gotta get the 1903A3, the Krag and a P17 out of the way first though.
I killed deer with mine the last two years and just shot it at the National Matches at Camp Perry. (55th overall.)
I think it is a dangerous and effective weapon if you know how to shoot. If you don't know how to shoot, it doesn't matter what you are shooting.
I'm going to shoot mine again in Sept at the Texas Garand Match and it's in line for more deer. Gotta get the 1903A3, the Krag and a P17 out of the way first though.
Limeyfellow
Member
Unless the walls of the room are reinforced with thick steel sheeting, .45acp is going to go through the inner walls and likely the outer wall of most buildings anyway. The Box O Truth shows howmuch penetration it really can have.
Danus ex
Member
Few of us are even remotely qualified to answer this question. Vern Humphrey is the only one here who has even claimed to have used the Garand in combat.
I would like to know, Vern, how did your Garand perform alongside the M14 and M16, if such a comparison can even be made? I suppose Vietnam is the only theater in which all three of our recent mass-issue rifles made an appearance.
I would like to know, Vern, how did your Garand perform alongside the M14 and M16, if such a comparison can even be made? I suppose Vietnam is the only theater in which all three of our recent mass-issue rifles made an appearance.
Harley Quinn
Member
I am in the blue as far as my thoughts go. (Has a few problems that make it not a first choice)
Why I like the FN 49 rather than the Garand. 8 in the clip is and has been a big "***" to me. Some could shoot almost as fast and accurate with a 1903 rifle and stripper clips and did very accurately.
Here I am in the Corps shooting ten rounds and have to dick around with 2 for starters Hmmm
But that is now and not then, that is what we had.
Shot expert in the service with it and always liked it, for what it did at the time. But for real shooting I carried the BAR...Then not now
Lots out there that are better as far as weapons go but at the time (late 50's early 60's) it was awesome.
Here is the thing though 8 rounds were in there very fast and not 5 at a time. So the question is do you like it??? Yes, I do. But it has had its day in the sun.
This is something I have read about the carbine (nam) but don't have much on the Garand there.
http://callofduty.filefront.com/info/Weapons_US_M1Carbine
I found this not many in nam I'd say. http://www.m1-m1a-ar15.com/faq.html
HQ
Why I like the FN 49 rather than the Garand. 8 in the clip is and has been a big "***" to me. Some could shoot almost as fast and accurate with a 1903 rifle and stripper clips and did very accurately.
Here I am in the Corps shooting ten rounds and have to dick around with 2 for starters Hmmm
But that is now and not then, that is what we had.
Shot expert in the service with it and always liked it, for what it did at the time. But for real shooting I carried the BAR...Then not now
Lots out there that are better as far as weapons go but at the time (late 50's early 60's) it was awesome.
Here is the thing though 8 rounds were in there very fast and not 5 at a time. So the question is do you like it??? Yes,
I do. But it has had its day in the sun.This is something I have read about the carbine (nam) but don't have much on the Garand there.
http://callofduty.filefront.com/info/Weapons_US_M1Carbine
I found this not many in nam I'd say. http://www.m1-m1a-ar15.com/faq.html
HQ
Circumstances alter cases, and times change. My CJ5 Jeep is excellent at some specialized things, and downright lacking (read dangerous!) at others. Warfare has evolved and a tool that is a very good compromise at one time and place becomes less so elsewhere.
The Garand made its reputation on reliability under battlefield conditions. I would rather maintain one (or its descendant M14) any day than an M16); but an M4 has its place, just like a J frame airweight does. And yes, it would have been better in .276, but that didn't happen for reasons of tradition and economy. And if you want power and penetration, well, AP is very impressive stuff.
I have seen and done some "rattle-battle" type shooting with the Garand on steel at 200 yards and it was an eye-opener. Don't laugh at a guy's weapon until you've seen him shoot.
Maybe we should stick to something easier here and discuss women or politics...
The Garand made its reputation on reliability under battlefield conditions. I would rather maintain one (or its descendant M14) any day than an M16); but an M4 has its place, just like a J frame airweight does. And yes, it would have been better in .276, but that didn't happen for reasons of tradition and economy. And if you want power and penetration, well, AP is very impressive stuff.
I have seen and done some "rattle-battle" type shooting with the Garand on steel at 200 yards and it was an eye-opener. Don't laugh at a guy's weapon until you've seen him shoot.
Maybe we should stick to something easier here and discuss women or politics...
jaholder1971
Member
:banghead:Sheesh, this is like asking which car manufacturer's better.:banghead:
The Garand is a solidly designed rifle that has been eclipsed by newer weapons designs and newer methods of warfighting. That's it.
It's still serious firepower: Yeah, only 8 rounds, but it's 8 rounds of 150 grain, 2800 fps badness for anyone from muzzle to 600 yards as fast as you can pull the trigger.
Ask yourself this question: Raquel Welch is getting up there, but would you kick her out of bed, having the chance?
The Garand is a solidly designed rifle that has been eclipsed by newer weapons designs and newer methods of warfighting. That's it.
It's still serious firepower: Yeah, only 8 rounds, but it's 8 rounds of 150 grain, 2800 fps badness for anyone from muzzle to 600 yards as fast as you can pull the trigger.
Ask yourself this question: Raquel Welch is getting up there, but would you kick her out of bed, having the chance?
GarandOwner
Member
I'll answer the actual question here: Is the garand still an effective weapon?
Yes, it is still effective if you dont think it is effective, come over to my house, and start running, Ill count to 20 before I start to shoot.......then you can argue with me as to if it is still an effective weapon.
Old? yes, Outdated? perhaps, Obsolete? ARGUABLE, Effective? Definably
It was as effective then as it is now. There are better choices out there if you are in combat, but if you go into combat with a garand, it will still be an effective weapon. You all can use your m16's or whatever for clearing rooms, but if when you step outside that building and Im firing at you with a garand, I think you'd agree with me that it is effective. Until the "next gen" smart bullets come out, the garand will remain an effective weapon.
Im not saying its the best weapon to take into combat, but if you do go engage some haji's in Iraq with a garand, you will have a weapon that is:
1. Reliable, you can dump all the sand you want in it and it will still fire
2. Accurate, if you are in a position where you can take well aimed shots you will hit your target
3. Stopping power, The .30-06 round has enough stopping power for 1 hit take downs of insurgents
4. Semi auto, It isnt a bolt action so you can provide rapid sustained effective fire ( I remember reading somewhere that the time saved from the automatic ejecting of the spent En-Bloc clip makes up for the smaller magazine capacity, allowing the Garand to provide the same rate of effective fire as the M-14)
5. It still uses a cartridge, it isnt like its an outdated muzzle loader which takes time to reload, (essentially making it not "effective")
While it might not be the assault rifle of today or tomorrow, the Garand was great in its day, and could still be used effectively today. If I go into the suck and cant take a Garand, I would gladly accept his cousin the M-14 over the M-16 any day.
and anyone arguing that the M-14 was a failure or the .308 was a waste of time, tell that to the special forces, they still use a scout shorter version of the M-14..........Id feel rather comfy going into combat with one of those 16" barrel M14.....at least then you'd know with all that sand that it would still fire each time you pull the trigger
Yes, it is still effective if you dont think it is effective, come over to my house, and start running, Ill count to 20 before I start to shoot.......then you can argue with me as to if it is still an effective weapon.
Old? yes, Outdated? perhaps, Obsolete? ARGUABLE, Effective? Definably
It was as effective then as it is now. There are better choices out there if you are in combat, but if you go into combat with a garand, it will still be an effective weapon. You all can use your m16's or whatever for clearing rooms, but if when you step outside that building and Im firing at you with a garand, I think you'd agree with me that it is effective. Until the "next gen" smart bullets come out, the garand will remain an effective weapon.
Im not saying its the best weapon to take into combat, but if you do go engage some haji's in Iraq with a garand, you will have a weapon that is:
1. Reliable, you can dump all the sand you want in it and it will still fire
2. Accurate, if you are in a position where you can take well aimed shots you will hit your target
3. Stopping power, The .30-06 round has enough stopping power for 1 hit take downs of insurgents
4. Semi auto, It isnt a bolt action so you can provide rapid sustained effective fire ( I remember reading somewhere that the time saved from the automatic ejecting of the spent En-Bloc clip makes up for the smaller magazine capacity, allowing the Garand to provide the same rate of effective fire as the M-14)
5. It still uses a cartridge, it isnt like its an outdated muzzle loader which takes time to reload, (essentially making it not "effective")
While it might not be the assault rifle of today or tomorrow, the Garand was great in its day, and could still be used effectively today. If I go into the suck and cant take a Garand, I would gladly accept his cousin the M-14 over the M-16 any day.
and anyone arguing that the M-14 was a failure or the .308 was a waste of time, tell that to the special forces, they still use a scout shorter version of the M-14..........Id feel rather comfy going into combat with one of those 16" barrel M14.....at least then you'd know with all that sand that it would still fire each time you pull the trigger
Vern Humphrey
Member
Not all walls are made of sheet rock and 2X4s!! Not all Fighting in Built Up Areas is done in single family detatched houses!! In Europe where the real FIBUA was done, you run into solid masonry buildings in cities and also lots of reinforced concrete construction.
Of course in any theater, you also run into bunkers and other field fortifications.
The Garand and the M14 have great penetration -- although we had AP ammo for the Garand and only Ball for the M14. The M16 did not penetrate so well -- and people will hide behind things in combat.
I have always believed that an M1 or M14 with enough ammo to accomplish a given mission will weigh less than an M16 with enough ammo to accomplish the same mission.
Has Raquel Welch been Factory Thorough Repaired, with all her worn or broken parts replaced and newly refinished?
Samuraigg
Member
Now this I like reading. I knew the enbloc had to have an advantage over magazines in terms of quickness in reloading.
- Status
